WPCB K=3s1S9s3Sl-bƐxL m:Ұ*"7J=)doU|&Gqg! {\E_bfs,֜AUmǮ8fuj-*>(LUm\9w<.wv`T24sb :^<]6rB(es ~j4Q:k\/-!hgJ"QU/3uYb_^r) {3K}3qwuMSiq¼cUIli垲Y\iIVK$^};)AJTP ~Ά}m?RϿ|Lb7Ą ̻x_ch% 0v& 0`& 0`& 0`Q' 0`' 0`( 08q( 0( 02{) 0) 0:* 0Y* 0_<+ 0 + 0j, 0. B*/ D// 0/ D/p1 01 06m2 02 0:3 0^3 0<C4 1e4 1u4 72Y5 05 0c6U67U>:7 Bx7U*7 07 D5c8 D-8 0K8U@9 ASP99 0i: 0D ; AQ;";=?@\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0{G1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJE1C:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dE)1dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7  ?W%2A`Arial?  SU\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKT<6X9`(Courier NewKSU\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Pi)(G2m$ !.8TdXXd8           0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman d%2A`Arial(|3g$ !.8TdXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  &d9 Z(Times New Roman ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3g$ !.8TdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  Rm$        1    _Theappellantsbrieferroneouslystatesthatthe$50,000wasnottobeappliedtothepurchaseprice.  Rm$        2    _AnAgreedOrderfiledonJanuary6,2003replacedGatewayDevelopment,Inc.asthesolenamedplaintiff  withJ.HowardJohnson,GeorgeW.HolderJr.,individuallyand/orasattorneyinfactforWesleyHolderIII,andRobert t F.Lance,d/b/aGatewayDevelopment,Inc.  Rm$        3    _TheBuyerarguedinseparatedocumentsthattheeffectivedatewasDecember26andalsothatitwas  December31.Theinconsistencyapparentlyarosefromconfusionabouttheeffecttheywishedtoattributetothefiveday t intervalaftersigningwhenthefirstoptionpaymentbecamedue.  Rm$        4    _Additionally,theInitialContractitselfstatesthat [_n]o_ԀprovisionsofthisAgreementmaybeamendedoradded  toexceptbyagreementinwritingsignedbythepartiesortheirrespectivesuccessorsininterest. !.8Tdd8     __   T8 XXdd8  @ ZTINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#TZ#Ԉ &   February19,2004Session L X XT #TXX #J.HOWARDJOHNSON,etal.v.MICHAELR.ALLISON,etal.X XT  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.023101IICarolMcCoy,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300428COAR3CVFiledOctober7,2004 #TXX #X XT    AV) ` dE<|` A }     \X XXX Thepartiesenteredintoanoptioncontractforthesaleandpurchaseofapieceofland.The x  bargainedforoptionhadalimitedduration,withthebuyerentitledtoextendtheoptionfor d additionalconsiderationifitexercisedthatrightwithinanagreedupontimeframe.Thebuyerpaid P forseveralextensions,butdidnotexercisetheoptionbeforethefinaloptiondeadlinehadpassed. < Thesellerssubsequentlyrefusedtosell,andthebuyersuedforbreachofcontractandspecific (x performance.Thesellersfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,whichthetrialcourtgranted.We d affirmthetrialcourt.#X XX\X ##TXX I#X XT P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt ( Affirmed     #TX '#X X.TPatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.CainandFrank  G.Clement,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  JosephL.Lackey,Jr.,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,J.HowardJohnson,GeorgeW. ` Holder,Jr.,individuallyand/orAsAttorneyInFactforWesleyHolder,III,andRobertF.Lance,all L  d/b/aGatewayDevelopment. 8!  KennethL.Campbell,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees,MichaelR.AllisonandDianeA. #`" Allison. #L#  OPINION #TXX  #X XT %$!% #TXX  #  X XT\X XXX @22 I . AnOptiontoPurchase  '"'   Thedisputedpropertyisa265acretractoflandinsouthwesternDavidsonCounty.The )$) ownersanddefendants,MichaelAllisonandDianeAllison,hadbeenusingaportionofthetractfor t*%* theirsodproductionbusiness.TwohundredacresofthepropertywaszonedAR2(agriculturaluse), `+&+ andtheremainderwaszonedCS(commercial/lightindustrial).Atsomepoint,the_ Allisons_  L,', ( Sellers)decidedtoselltheirland. 8-(- _ ԇ  Thethreeindividualplaintiffs,J.HowardJohnson,GeorgeW.HolderJr.,andRobertF.  LancedecidedtobuytheAllisonslandandtocreatearesidentialdevelopmentonit.Theyformed  alimitedliabilitycompany,GatewayLLC,( Buyer)toaccomplishtheirpurpose.Theyunderstood  thatinorderfortheirplanstosucceed,theywouldhavetogetthezoningofthelandchanged. t   OnFebruary20,2001,theBuyerandtheSellersenteredintoan AgreementforPurchase L  ofRealProperty,( InitialContract)wherebytheBuyerobtainedanoptionoflimiteddurationto 8  purchasethepropertyfor$2,600,000.ThecontractalsograntedtheBuyertherighttopursuere $ t zoningofthepropertywhiletheoptionwasineffectandobligatedtheSellerstocooperateinsuch  ` rezoning.  L    TheBuyerpaid$3,000tomaketheoptionavailableuntilMarch14,2001.Theinitial $  payment,andanysubsequentpayments,weretobeputintoanescrowaccountandcreditedtothe   purchasepriceifthesaleclosed.TheBuyerwaspermittedtoextendtheoptiondeadlineforone   monthatatime,bypaying$5,000foreachsuchextension,butonlyforalimitednumberofmonths.   Onesectionofthecontractstated, Timeisoftheessenceofthisagreement.October14,2001was   designatedinthecontractasthe FinalOptionDeadline.Anadditionalprovisionforextensionsto p thisdeadlinewasincludedinSection2(a)oftheInitialContract: \ Notwithstandingtheforegoing,iftheBuyerhasdiligentlypursuedapprovalbythe 4 MetropolitanPlanningCommissionofafinalsubdivisionplatfortheapproximately  p 200AcreportionofthepropertypresentlyzonedAR2(hereinafterreferredtoasthe  \  PlatApproval)andiftheBuyerhasnotreceivedthePlatApprovalbyOctober14, H 2001,thentheBuyermayelecttofurtherextendtheOptionDeadlineuntilNovember 4 14,2001;similarly,theBuyermayelecttofurtherextendtheOptionDeadlinefor   twomoremonthlyperiods,ifthePlatApprovalisnotreceivedpriortotheOption   Deadlineaspreviouslyextended.EachoftheforegoingthreeextensionsforthePlat  ApprovalwillbeelectedbydepositingwiththeEscrowAgent,onorbeforethe  OptionDeadlinethenineffect,additionalOptionMoneyof$5,000foreachsuch  extension... l   ThepracticalresultofthisprovisionwastomakeJanuary14,2002thenewdefactofinal D! optiondeadline.ThecontractfurtherprovidedthattheOptionwastobeexercisedbytheBuyer 0"  givingtheSellersnoticeofitsintenttopurchaseanddepositingwiththeescrowagentanadditional #l! optionpaymentof$50,000. $X"   Theprocessofchangingthezoningprovedtobemoretimeconsumingandcomplicatedthan %0!$ theBuyerhadanticipated.Asaresult,theBuyeraskedtheSellersforanadditionalextensiontothe &"% optionperiod.OnDecember21,2001,thepartiesenteredintoa FirstAmendmenttothe '#& AgreementforPurchaseofRealProperty.( AmendedContract).Thisagreementspecifically (#' allowedfornine(insteadofthree)monthlyextensionstotheoriginalOptionDeadlineofOctober )$( 14,2001,butwiththepriceofeachmonthlyextensionafterthethirdextensionsetat$10,000instead |*%) of$5,000. h+&* Ї  Further,theoptionmoneyfromtheadditionalsixextensionswastobepaiddirectlytothe  Sellersinsteadofbeingplacedinescrow,andwouldnotbecreditedagainstthepurchaseprice.An  additionalprovisionwasthatiftheBuyerdidnotexercisetheoptionbyJanuary3,2002,$53,000  wouldbewithdrawnfromtheescrowaccount,andpaiddirectlytotheAllisons.Ofthatsum, t $50,000wastobecreditedagainstthepurchaseprice.b #  1       `   Despitethedeadlineextensions,GeorgeHolderremainedconcernedthatthezoningchange 8  wouldstillnotbecompletedbeforetheoptionexpired.Hespokeaboutthoseconcernsseveraltimes $ t withDavidWilson,DirectorofPropertiesfortheAllisonsrealestateagent.  `   OnFebruary26,2002,Mr.WilsonsentMr.HolderaletterstatingthatheandMikeAllison  8  hadmetwiththeMetroCouncilmaninwhosedistrictthesubjectpropertywaslocated.Theletter $  disclosedthatthecouncilmansscheduleleftinsufficienttimeforthezoningprocesstobecompleted   priortotheexpirationoftheoptioncontract.     TheletteralsostatedthatMr.Allisonwouldconsiderafurtherextensionofthecontract   undertwoconditions:(1)thesubmissionofaspecificplan(PUDorUDO)totheplanning p commission,toCarter&Associates,andtothecouncilmanpriortoMay1,2002,fortheir \ comments,and(2)documentationshowingevidenceofsufficientfundstoclosethetransactionupon H thezoningbillpassingsecondreading. 4   TheBuyerreliesheavilyonasecondletterfromDavidWilsontoGeorgeHolder,datedApril  \ 23,2002.Itbegins, [d]uringourrecentdiscussions,yourequestedclarificationregardingtheterm H lengthforacontractextensionbeyondJuly14,2002.Itthensummarizestheearlierletter,notesthat 4 thereviseddevelopmentplanhasbeensubmittedtotheplanningcommission,andstatesthat [t]he   requestedfinancialinformationmaybeprovidedanytimepriortoMay3,2002.Theletteralso   statesthat wefeelitwouldbeineveryonesbestinteresttoprovideyouwithanextramonthortwo  beyondJulytofinalizeandclosethetransaction,and [i]ntheeventthatrezoningispostponedor  delayedbeyondJuly,Mikemayconsideranadditionalcontractextension.    BelowtheclosingandMr.Wilsonssignature,thefollowingsentenceappearsinitalictype: X  Thisletterisforinformationanddiscussionpurposesonlyandisnotintendedtobe 0"  anoffertoextendthecontract.Anyextensionmustbeagreeduponinwritingby #l! boththeBuyerandSellers. $X"   TheBuyerdidnotfurnishtheSellerswiththefinancialinformationbyMay3,asrequested %0!$ inMr.Wilsonsletter.ThezoningchangepasseditssecondreadingonJuly16.Earlierthatsame &"% day,however,plaintiffHowardJohnsonhadgoneonthepropertytogetsomeinformationforthe '#& councilman.Whilehewasontheproperty,MikeAllisonaskedMr.Johnson, yourealizeyouno (#' longerhaveacontract? )$( Ї  TheBuyerhadtendereda$10,000checktothedefendantsonJuly12withtheintentionof  extendingtheoptionperiodtoAugust14.TheSellersacceptedthecheckatthattime,butdidnot  cashit.BytheweekofJuly23,theBuyerhadfinallygottenallthenecessaryfinancingarrangedand  metwithDavidWilsontoadvisehimofthatfact.Mr.Wilsonrefusedtogivethemacontract,and t hesubsequentlyreturnedthecheckofJuly12.OnAugust14,GeorgeHolderofferedanother ` $10,000checkfortheAugustextension,butMr.Wilsontoldhimitwouldnotbeaccepted.The L  rezoningpasseditsthirdreadingonAugust20,andwassignedbytheMayoronAugust21. 8  @ II.CourtProceedings   `   GatewayDevelopmentfiledaComplaintforbreachofcontractintheDavidsonCounty  <  ChanceryCourtonOctober17,2002.c #  2      ׀TheComplaintrecitedthattheBuyerhadspentinexcessof (  $234,000foroptionpayments,engineeringandotherexpensesinanefforttogettheproperty   rezoned,thatthezoningchangeinuredtothebenefitoftheSellers,andassertedthattheBuyerwas   entitledtospecificperformanceoftheoptioncontract.     TheBuyeradvancedtwotheoriestosupporttheclaim:first,thattheoptionperioddidnot t enduntilsometimeinAugustof2002;second,thateveniftheoptionexpiredonJuly15,2002,the ` defendantsshouldbeestoppedfromsoassertingbecausetheyhadimpliedlypromisedtheplaintiffs L anextensionoftheoptiondeadlineuntilthepropertywasrezoned.TheSellersrespondedwithan 8 AnswerandaCounterComplaint,askingforaDeclaratoryJudgmentthattheoptionagreementwas $t unenforceableorhadexpired.TheysubsequentlyfiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment. `   AfterahearingontheMotion,thetrialcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheSellers.In 8 itsjudgmentofJanuary14,2003,thecourtspecificallyheldthatthefinaloptiondeadlinewasJuly $ 15,2002,andthattheplaintiffsdidnotexercisetheoptioninthemannerrequiredbythecontract  bygivingnoticetothedefendantsanddepositing$50,000withtheescrowagentsbeforethatdate.  Thisappealfollowed.  @  III.SummaryJudgmentandContractPrinciples  p   Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewheretherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactand H! themovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.McCarleyv.WestQualityFood 4"  Services,960S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,211(Tenn.1993);Tenn.  #p! R.Civ.P.56.04.  $\"   Inthiscase,thereisnodisputeastotheoperativefacts:thatis,astothesequenceofevents %4!$ thatoccurredduringtheongoingdealingsbetweentheparties.Insofarasthereisadisputeastothe & "% dateonwhichtheoptionexpired,thatisamatterofcontractinterpretation,andthereforeaquestion ' #& oflawratherthanamaterialquestionoffactsuchaswouldprecludesummaryjudgment.See  PlantersGinCo.v.FederalCompress&WarehouseCo.,Inc.,78S.W.3d885,890(Tenn.2002);  Doev.HCAHealthServicesofTenn.,Inc.,46S.W.3d191,196(Tenn.2001).Ourreviewofthe  trialcourtslegalconclusionsisdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessaccordedtoits t judgment.Bainv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997). `   Itiswellestablishedthat [t]hecardinalruleforinterpretationofcontractsistoascertainthe 8  intentionofthepartiesandtogiveeffecttothatintention,consistentwithlegalprinciples.Pearsall $ t MotorsInc.v.RegalChryslerPlymouth,Inc.,521S.W.2d578,580(Tenn.1975);seealsoPlanters  ` GinCo.,78S.W.3dat889890;GalleriaAssociates,L.P.v.Mogk,34S.W.3d874,87677(Tenn.  L  Ct.App.2000).  8    Theintentionofthepartiesisderivedfromthelanguageofthecontractitself.When   interpretingcontracts,thecourtsshouldgiveeachtermitsusual,naturalandordinarymeaning.   PlantersGinCo.,78S.W.3dat889890;EvcoCorp.v.Ross,528S.W.2d20,23(Tenn.1975);   RealtyShop,Inc.v.RRWestminsterHolding,Inc.,7S.W.3d581,597(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).     Thecourtsshouldavoidstrainedconstructionswhichcreateambiguitieswherenoneactually \ exist.PlantersGinCo.,78S.W.3dat891;HillsboroPlazaEnterprisesv.Moon,860S.W.2d45, H 4748(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Ifthecontractisunambiguous,thenthecourtmaynotlookbeyond 4 itsfourcornerstoascertainthepartiesintentions.Rogersv.FirstTennesseeBankNationalAssn,  p 738S.W.2d635,637(Tenn.Ct.App.1987);Bokorv.Holder,722S.W.2d676,679(Tenn.Ct.App.  \ 1986). H @66  IV.IssuesonAppeal    e@\\ A.TheFinalOptionDate     TheBuyernotethatboththeoriginalcontractandtheamendedagreementcontainclauses  statingthatthe effectivedateofeachagreementwouldbe thedatethelastofBuyerandSellers l haveexecutedthisagreement.SincetheAmendedAgreementwassignedbytheSellersand X  deliveredtotheBuyeronDecember26,2001,theBuyercontendsthatthefinaloptiondeadline D! shouldbeeightmonthslater,orAugust26,2002.d #  3      ׀Inthealternative,theyarguethatattheveryleast, 0"  thecontractcontainsanambiguityastothefinaldatetheoptioncouldbeexercised. #l! e  Thelanguageofbothcontractsmakesclear,however,thatthereisnoconnectionbetween $D # theeffectivedateofthecontractandthefinaloptiondeadline.TheeffectivedateoftheInitial %0!$ ContractfunctionsasthestartingpointtodeterminethedatefortheBuyersobligationtodeposit &"% theoptionmoneywiththeEscrowAgent( within5businessdaysfromtheeffectivedateofthis '#& Agreement),andtoconductasurveyoftheproperty( within90daysfromtheEffectiveDate).  UndertheAmendedContract,theBuyersobligationtodeposittheoptionmoneywiththeEscrow  Agentisalsostatedtobewithin5businessdaysfromitseffectivedate.    Thecontractlanguagereferringtothefinaloptiondateiscomplex,butitisnotambiguous. ` AfinaloptiondateofOctober14,2001isspecifiedintheInitialContract,withthreepossible L  extensionsfromthatdatemeasuredinonemonthintervals.TheAmendedsection2(a)ofthe 8  Contractincreasesthenumberofpossibleextensionsasfollows: $ t  ` However,theBuyercanextendtheOptionDeadlineforonemonthby  L  depositingdirectlywiththeEscrowAgent,onorbeforeMarch14,2001,additional  8  OptionMoneyof$5,000.00.IftheBuyerelectstheforegoingfirstextensionofthe $  OptionDeadline,thentheBuyermayelecttofurtherextendtheOptionDeadlinefor   sixsuccessivemonthlyperiodsbydepositingwiththeEscrowAgent,onorbefore   theOptionDeadlinethenineffect,additionalOptionMoneyof$5,000.00foreach   suchextension,sothatifalloftheextensionsareelected,thefinalOptionDeadline   isOctober14,2001.Notwithstandingtheforegoing,iftheBuyerhasdiligently p pursuedapprovalbytheMetropolitanPlanningCommissionofthefinalsubdivision \ platfortheapproximately200acreportionpresentlyzonedAR2(hereinafter H referredtoasthePlatApproval)andiftheBuyerhasnotreceivedthePlatApproval 4 byOctober14,2001,thentheBuyermayelecttofurtherextendtheOptionDeadline  p untilNovember14,2001:similarly,theBuyermayelecttofurtherextendtheOption  \ Deadlinefor eight moremonthlyperiods,ifthePlatApprovalisnotreceivedprior H totheOptionDeadlineaspreviouslyextended.Eachoftheforegoing nine  8 extensionsforthePlatApprovalwillbeelectedbydepositingwiththeEscrow ( Agent,onorbeforetheOptionDeadlinethenineffect,additionalOptionMoneyof  $5,000.00foreachsuchextension.    Althoughitrefersinonesentenceto eightmoremonthlyperiods,andinanotherto the  foregoingnineextensions,thereisnoambiguity,becausethenineextensionsareclearlymeantto t bemeasuredfromtheinitialfinaloptiondeadlineofOctober14,2001,andtheeightadditional `  monthlyperiodsarespecifiedtoextendfromNovember14,2001,thedateofthefirstoption L! extension. 8"    Tosumup,theinitialcontractrecitedafinaloptiondeadlineofOctober14,2001,but $`" allowedforthreeadditionalextensionstobringtheactualdeadlinedatetoJanuary14,2002.The $L # amendmentofDecember26,2001addedanothersixextensions,indicatinganewfinaldeadlinedate %8!$ ofJuly14,2002.SincethatdatefellonaSunday,theclauseofthecontractrelatingtocomputation &$"% oftimeadvancestheactualdeadlinetothenextbusinessday,July15,2002.TheBuyerhave '#& attemptedtofindanambiguitybylinkingunrelatedprovisionsofthecontracttogether,resultingin (#' whatcanonlybecharacterizedasastrainedconstruction.Thecarefullywordedclauseswhichrefer )$( totheoptiondeadlinesarenotatallambiguous. *%)  p+&*   Consequently,theBuyersoptionexpiredJuly15,2002.Nofurtherextensionwasnegotiated  oragreedupon.Further,Buyerdidnotexercisetheoptionpriortoitsexpiration.  @ B. TimeIsoftheEssence  t   Inanordinarycontracttopurchaserealproperty,theinabilityofapartytocloseonthedate P  recitedinthecontractisnotconsideredtobeamaterialbreachofthecontract.Thegeneralruleis <  thattimeisnotoftheessenceinarealestatesalescontract,unlessthecontractspecifiesotherwise. ( x Hillardv.Franklin,41S.W.3d106,113(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Lewisv.Muchmore,26S.W.3d632,  d 639(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).  P    Theruleistheexactoppositeforoptioncontracts.Unlikeacontractofsale,anoption (  contractisaunilateralcontract, whichactsasacontinuingoffer,givenforconsideration,to   purchaseorleasepropertyatanagreeduponpriceandterms,withinaspecifiedtime.(emphasis   added).BlacksLawDictionary(5thed.1979).Thus, Theruleisuniformthatbothatlawand   inequity,timeisoftheessenceofanoptioncontract.Theruleisnecessaryfromtheverynatureof   thecontractitself.Rayv.Thomas,232S.W.2d32,34(Tenn.1950)(citingWillistonon t Contracts853;17C.J.S.Contracts504at1072).SeealsoAllenv.NationalAdvertisingCo., ` 798S.W.2d766,768(Tenn.Ct.App.1990). L   Therewasthereforenoneedforthepartiestoinclude,astheydid,thephrase timeisofthe $t essenceintheircontract,sincethecontract,byitsnature,alreadyincludedthatprovision. ` Obviously,harshresultsmaysometimesfollowwhenapartyisatriskforlosingallitsrightsby L failingtoactinatimelyfashion.Thisisespeciallylikelyincaseslikethepresentone,wherethe 8 optioneehaddifficultyestablishingthefinancialandregulatoryconditionsnecessarytoexercisethe $ option.    Inthisappeal,theBuyerhasfocusedalmostentirelyontheproblemsitencounteredintrying  tochangethezoningwithinthetimepermittedbytheoption,amatterthatultimatelyprovedtobe  beyonditscontrol.Wenote,however,thatthecontractdidnotmakeachangeinzoningacondition p fortheBuyersexerciseoftheoption.TheBuyerwaspermittedtopursuerezoningoftheproperty \  underthecontract(andwaspromisedtheSellerscooperationinthatendeavor),butwasnotrequired H! todoso. 4"    TheBuyerarguesotherwise,contendingthatthecontractallowedtheSellerstodeclineto  $\" closeduringtheoptionperiodiftherezoningwasnotaccomplished.Butafairreadingofthe $H # contractshowsthisnottobethecase.WhiletheBuyersdifficultieswithzoningandfinancingwere %4!$ unfortunate,therewasnothinginthecontractitselfthatwouldhavepreventeditfrompurchasing & "% thepropertyatanytimepriortothefinaloptiondeadline. ' #&  l+&* Ї@$ C.Estoppel     TheStatuteofFraudsrequiresanycontractforthesaleofrealpropertytobeinwritingin  ordertobeenforceable.Tenn.CodeAnn.292101(4).Thisincludescontractswhichgranta t partyanoptiontopurchasesuchproperty.e #  4      ׀Andersonv.HacksCrossingPartners,3S.W.3d482, ` 485(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);GRWEnterprises,Inc.v.Davis,797S.W.2d606,612n.6(Tenn.Ct. L  App.1990).Itisundisputedthatthepartiesdidnotenterintoawrittenagreementtoextendthe 8  optionbeyondthedatesetoutintheAmendedContract. $ t   TheBuyerseekstoavoidtheoperationoftheStatuteofFraudsbyrelyingonthedefenseof  L  equitableestoppel.ItarguesthattheSellersshouldnotbeallowedtorelyontheJuly15,2002  8  deadlineforexercisingtheoption,becauseofassurancesmadebytheSellersagentwhichledthe $  Buyertobelievethatthedeadlinehadbeenorwouldbeextended.Theelementsthatmustbeproven   toestablishequitableestoppelasadefensetotheexerciseofalegalrightarewellestablished.   Thedoctrineofequitableestoppelrequiresevidenceofthefollowingelementswith   respecttothepartyagainstwhomestoppelisasserted: p pp(1)Conductwhichamountstoafalserepresentationorconcealmentof H materialfacts,or,atleast,whichiscalculatedtoconveytheimpressionthat 4 thefactsareotherwisethan,andinconsistentwith,thosewhichtheparty  p subsequentlyattemptstoassert;(2)Intention,oratleastexpectationthat  \ suchconductshallbeacteduponbytheotherparty;(3)Knowledge,actual H orconstructiveoftherealfacts. 4 ppEquitableestoppelalsorequiresthefollowingelementswithrespecttotheparty   assertingestoppel:  pp(1)Lackofknowledgeandofthemeansofknowledgeofthetruthastothe  factsinquestion;(2)Relianceupontheconductofthepartyestopped;and l (3)Actionbasedthereonofsuchacharacterastochangehisposition X  prejudicially. D! ppOsbornev.MountainLifeIns.Co,130S.W.3d769,774(Tenn.2004)(citationsomitted).Seealso #l! Roachv.Renfro,989S.W.2d335,339(Tenn.Ct.App.1998) $X"   Itistheburdenofthepartyseeingtoinvokeestoppeltoproveeachandeveryoneofits %0!$ elements.Bokor,722S.W.2dat680;ThirdNationalBankv.CapitolRecords,Inc.,445S.W.2d &"% 471,476(Tenn.Ct.App.1969).Wenotethatinthiscase,theBuyerdoesnotallegeconcealment '#& orfalserepresentationsofmaterialfacts.TheBuyerhadthesameaccesstothefactsasdidthe (#' Sellers,anddoesnotassertthattheSellersmisleditastotheprospectsfortimelycompletionofthe  rezoningprocess.TheBuyercomplains,rather,thattheSellersagentmaderepresentationsthatled  ittobelievethatthefinaloptiondeadlinewouldeitherbeextendedorwaived.    WhileitappearsthattheBuyermayindeedhavereliedtoitsdetrimentuponcertain ` statementsmadebyMr.Wilson,itdidsodespiteotherstatementsmadesimultaneouslybytheagent, L  whichattheveryleastshouldhavemadeitawareofthenecessityforcaution.Theevidencealso 8  showsthattheBuyerknewthatMr.WilsondidnothavetheauthoritytobindtheSellers,andthat $ t theSellerswouldnotnecessarilyagreetoanotherextensionoftheoption.  `   TheBuyercitesasthebasisforhisargumentanoralstatementbyMr.Wilson,andthe  8  agentsletterofApril23,2002.TheBuyerclaimsthatinanApril2002meeting,Mr.Holderand $  Mr.JohnsonaskedMr.Wilsonforanextensionjustincasethematterdidnotgothroughplanning,   zoningandplatapprovalwithinthecontracttime.Mr.Wilsonallegedlysaid, Iwillnotagreeto   that,butyoudonothavetoworryaboutthisaslongasthezoningisproceeding.Youredealing   withhonorableandethicalpeopleandwewilldowhatisright.     Regardlessoftheaccuracyoftheabovecharacterization,itwasnotreasonablefortheBuyer \ nottoinsistonanewextensionbeforeproceedingfurther.Mr.WilsonsletterofApril23,2002 H statesinpart, 4 IntheeventthatrezoningispostponedordelayedbeyondJuly,Mikemayconsider  \ anadditionalcontractextension,howeverthetransactionmustbeclosedpriortothe H nextscheduledseasonalplantingofthesodcrop(endofSeptembertomidOctober 4 contingentuponweatherconditions)regardlessofthepropertyszoningstatus.     Wenotethatwhiletheletterholdsoutthepossibilityofanoptionextension( Mikemay  consideranadditionalextension...),itdoesnotpromiseanysuchextension.Further,aswestated  above,thebottomoftheletteralsorecites, [t]hisletterisforinformationanddiscussionpurposes  onlyandis notintendedtobeanoffertoextendthecontract.Anyextensionmustbeagreed l uponinwritingbyboththeBuyerandSellers.  \    Theproofindicatesthatallpartieswereexperiencedbusinesspeoplewhowerenegotiating 4"  atarmslength.TheBuyerwasrepresentedbyanattorney.Theequivocalrepresentationsbythe  #p! Sellersagentshouldnothaveledanexperiencedbusinesspersontoassumethatacontractdeadline  $\" couldbesafelyignored.Apparently,theBuyernevermadeanefforttoobtainanotherextensionin $H # writingasthelettersuggested.Further,theBuyercouldhaveprotecteditsinterestbytakingaction %4!$ beforeJuly15tocomplywiththecontractaswrittenby (a)givingnoticetotheSellersofthe & "% Buyersintenttopurchaseand(b)depositingwiththeEscrowAgentanadditionalOptionPayment ' #& of$50,000.00. (#'  l+&*   Ourcourtshavestatedonnumerousoccasionsthatestoppelisnotfavoredunderourlaw.  Sturkiev.Bottoms,310S.W.2d451,453(Tenn.1958);Moorev.Carter,277S.W.2d427,431  (Tenn.1954);Yorkv.VulcanMaterialsCo.,63S.W.3d384,388(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Grantv.  Prograis,979S.W.2d594,602(Tenn.Ct.App.1997);Stateexrel.Sextonv.SevierCounty,948 t S.W.2d747,750(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Sincetheapplicationofpromissoryestoppelincontract ` casescreatesanexceptiontotheStatuteofFrauds,itshouldnotbeappliedtooliberallylestthe L  exceptionswallowtherule.SeeSheddv.GaylordEntertainmentCo.,118S.W.3d695,698(Tenn. 8  Ct.App.2003). $ t   TheBuyerreliesonthecaseofGRWEnterprises,Inc.,797S.W.2d606.Inthatcase,this  L  courtorderedspecificperformanceofanoptioncontract,despitethefactthatthefinaldeadlinedate  8  recitedinthewrittencontractwasDecember15,1987,andtheoptioneedidnotattempttoexercise $  theoptionuntilDecember22,1987.     Whiletheabovedescribedfactpatternappearsatfirstglancetopresentasituationsimilar   totheonebeforeus,adeeperlookrevealsimportantdistinctionsbetweenthetwocases.Thereason   forourapparentdeviationfromthestrictapplicationofthedeadlineinGRWhadtodowithevents p thatoccurredatthetimethepartiesnegotiatedtheircontract.Theproofshowedthatfromthevery \ beginningoftheirnegotiations,thepartiesintendedtheoptiontorunforninetydaysaftertheoption H wasexecuted. 4   Thepartiesdraftedacontract,butdelayeditsexecution.Theythenagreedtorevisethe  \ contractsoitsdateswouldcoincidewiththedatesofaanotheroptioncontract,betweentheplaintiff H andtheGulfOilCompany,whichwishedtobecometheultimateowneroftheproperty.Theparties 4 accordinglyaddedinterlineationsandinitialstotheunexecutedcontracttoreflectachangein   executiondatefromSeptember15toSeptember23,1987.However,theyinadvertentlyneglected   tochangethedeadlinedateaswell.Thesubsequentcourseofdealingsbetweentheparties(upuntil  thepointthatthedefendantdecidednottogothroughwiththesale)indicatedthattheyboth  understoodthecorrectdeadlinedatetobeDecember23.    Theparolevidenceruledoesnotallowpartiestouseparolevidencetovarytheplainterms X  ofawrittencontract.Thereisanexceptionforsituationswhereitcanbeproventhatthewritten D! termsdonotaccuratelyreflecttheintentionsofthepartiesatthetimeoftheircontracting.Id.at613; 0"  seealsoGulfInsuranceCo.v.Construx,Inc.,No.M199902803COAR3CV,2001WL840240 #l! at*10(Tenn.Ct.App.Jul26,2001)(noTenn.R.App.P11applicationfiled). $X"   InGRW,theproofwasoverwhelmingthatthedeadlinedaterecitedinthecontractdidnot %0!$ reflectatruemeetingofthemindsoftheparties.Theyintendedtocreateanoptioncontractof &"% ninetydaysduration,beginningonSeptember23,1987,butanoversightonboththeirparts '#& preventedthewrittencontractfromexpressingthisintention. (#'   Inthecasebeforeus,nodraftingerrorwasalleged,andtheBuyerwasawarefromthevery |*%) beginningthatwhileitwasentitledtopayformonthlyextensionstoitsoptionrights,thenumber h+&* ofsuchextensionswouldbelimited.Therecanbenodoubtthatthepartiesreachedameetingof  themindsonboththeInitialContractandtheAmendedContract.TheBuyersestoppelargument  isbasedonconductbytheSellersortheiragentthatoccurredmonthsaftertheAmendedContract  wasexecuted.Forthereasonsstatedabove,wehaverejectedthatargument. t @dd) IV.  L    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.WeremandthiscasetotheChanceryCourtof $ t DavidsonCountyforanyfurtherproceedingsthatmaybenecessary.Taxthecostsonappealtothe  ` appellants,J.HowardJohnson,GeorgeW.Holder,Jr.,individuallyand/orAsAttorneyInFactfor  L  WesleyHolder,III,andRobertF.Lance,alld/b/aGatewayDevelopment.  8  #X XX\X g #   `     h     ____________________________________      `     h     PATRICIAJ.COTTRELL,JUDGE